Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedJudicial Review application dated 4th March 2023 (Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2023)· [2024] KEELC 1761 (KLR)

Republic v County Surveyor of Machakos & another; Mwakavi (Exparte Applicant); Maingi (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application 2 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1761 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 April 2024
3,976 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court quashed a county surveyor's boundary report because only the Land Registrar, not the surveyor, has power to decide boundary disputes over land with general boundaries.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The ex-parte applicant, registered proprietor of Mavoko Town Block 3/43224 at Lukenya, Machakos, sought judicial review orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the decision/report of the County Surveyor Machakos dated 24th January 2022, contending that the boundary exercise was conducted without adequate notice to him, without listing his parcel, without supplying him the report or allowing an independent surveyor, and that the surveyor used a map referencing parcels that no longer existed, resulting in a large chunk of his land being excised in favour of the interested party, owner of parcel 3/3120. The interested party opposed, asserting the surveys were conducted twice in the presence of all owners, that the applicant never objected, and that judicial review was inappropriate as the applicant was challenging merits and had not exhausted remedies, including appeal. The respondents relied on the interested party's response. The court framed a sole issue: whether the applicant met the threshold for judicial review orders. It held that judicial review examines process, not merits, but found that the surveyor, though styling the exercise 'boundary identification', had in substance determined a boundary dispute. Since all the parcels were defined by general (approximate) boundaries, section 18 of the Land Registration Act vests jurisdiction over such disputes in the Land Registrar, not the county surveyor. Acting without jurisdiction, the surveyor's report was an illegality, null and void, which also rendered the process unfair and in breach of Article 50. Certiorari and prohibition were granted; mandamus was refused because the applicant had not filed a boundary dispute before the Land Registrar who declined to determine it. The application was partially allowed with costs awarded against the interested party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the county surveyor had jurisdiction to determine a boundary dispute concerning general boundaries

Holding

No; such jurisdiction vests exclusively in the Land Registrar under section 18 of the Land Registration Act, and the county surveyor acted without jurisdiction, rendering the report null and void

Reasoning

The parcels, including the suit property, are defined by general (approximate) boundaries. Section 18 of the Land Registration Act vests determination of disputes over general boundaries in the Land Registrar. Although the exercise was styled 'boundary identification', it in substance determined a boundary dispute. Lacking statutory jurisdiction, the surveyor's report of 24th January 2022 was an illegality and void, meriting certiorari and prohibition.

p. 6
02

Whether the process adopted by the county surveyor violated the applicant's right to a fair hearing

Holding

Yes; the applicant's parcel was not listed in the notice/report as affected, and the matter was framed as boundary identification without identifying the parties, depriving him of a fair hearing under Article 50

Reasoning

The surveyor's report did not list the applicant's parcel despite his being the owner of land affected by the decision. Framing the exercise as boundary identification rather than a boundary dispute, without stating claimant or respondent, failed to clarify with precision the case against him, so he could not sufficiently prepare his defence. This was procedurally unfair and violated Article 50.

p. 6
03

Whether mandamus was available to compel a redo of the boundary rectification

Holding

No; mandamus issues only where a public officer declines to perform a statutory duty, and the applicant had not exhausted the remedy before the Land Registrar

Reasoning

The applicant did not demonstrate that he filed a boundary dispute before the Land Registrar and that the Registrar declined to determine it. Mandamus is unavailable absent a demonstrated refusal to perform a statutory duty. Moreover, rectification and verification of a general boundary vests in the Land Registrar, not the county surveyor.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction flows from the constitution or statute and no court, tribunal or office can arrogate to itself jurisdiction it does not have
  • A decision made without jurisdiction is an illegality, null and void and liable to be quashed by certiorari
  • Under section 18 of the Land Registration Act, jurisdiction over boundary disputes concerning general boundaries vests in the Land Registrar, not the county surveyor
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari to remove into the court and quash the decision and/or report of the County Surveyor Machakos dated 24th January 2022
  2. 2.An order of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents from implementing the decision and/or report of the County Surveyor Machakos dated 24th January 2022 as far as Plot No. Mavoko Town Block 3/43224 is concerned
  3. 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the ex-parte applicant, to be borne by the interested party

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 53 rule 4(1)
  • Land Registration ActSection 18
  • Survey ActCap. 299

Cases cited (9)

  • Civil Service Union vs Minister for Civil Service
    (1985) A.C at 401D
  • R vs The Chief Licensing Officer & Anor, Exparte Tom Mboya Onyango
    HC Misc App. No. 524 of 2017
  • Diamond Hasham Lalji & another v Attorney General & 4 Others
  • Kenya National Examination Council vs Republic Exparte Geofirey Gtahenji & 9 Others
    Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996
  • Republic vs Principal Secretary, Ministry of Internal Security & Another Ex-parte Schon Noorani & Another
    [2018] eKLR
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & another
    [2002] eKLR
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa v. Republic & Umoja Consultants
    Civil Appeal No. 185 of 201…
  • Pastoli v. Kabale District Local Government Council & Others
    [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others
    S.C Civil Application No. 2 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; supervisory jurisdiction over statutory decision-makers; Article 50 and Article 47 of the Constitution invoked

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v County Surveyor of Machakos & another; Mwakavi (Exparte Applicant); Maingi (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application 2 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1761 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review application dated 4th March 2023 (Notice of Motion dated 14th March 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1761/eng@2024-04-11

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.